American International College Programmatic Relevance & Target Population Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help

American International College Programmatic Relevance & Target Population Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help. American International College Programmatic Relevance & Target Population Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help.

Provide and describe the Action Model/Change Model for the program that will be evaluated (submit as separate attachmen

Describe your evaluation plan. Be sure to address the following.

What’s the policy or programmatic relevance?

What is the intervention? How are you adapting it in the U.S.?

What are the determinants that must be considered?

Who is the target population?

How are they expected to benefit? Who else will benefit?

What hypothesis are you testing?

What methods are you employing to assess the impact of your program?

What is your sampling technique?

What is the primary outcome variable?(one variable please) Be sure to make certain you describe the outcome upfront in the paper and why you think the intervention will be effective in changing the pattern on this outcome

American International College Programmatic Relevance & Target Population Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help[supanova_question]

STU Weekly Clinical Experience Difficult Patients Discussion Writing Assignment Help

Follow all rubric instruction all the time, and information provide bellow

Describe your clinical experience for this week.( Patient came to the clinic said that bilateral pain around the knees and said that hurt a lot)

  • Did you face any challenges, any success? If so, what were they?
  • Describe the assessment of a patient, detailing the signs and symptoms (S&S), assessment, plan of care, and possible differential diagnosis.
  • What did you learn from this week’s clinical experience that can beneficial for you as an advanced practice nurse?
  • Support your plan of care with the current peer-reviewed research guideline.

Submission Instructions:

  • Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources. Your initial post is worth 8 points.
  • You should respond to at least two of your peers by extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts. Your reply posts are worth 2 points (1 point per response.)
  • All replies must be constructive and include at least two references.
  • Please post your initial response by 11:59 PM ET Thursday, and comment on the posts of two classmates by 11:59 PM ET Sunday.
  • You can expect feedback from the instructor within 48 to 72 hours from the Sunday due date.

null

Grading Rubric


Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.

Discussion Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points

Identification of Main Issues, Problems, and Concepts

5 points
Distinguished

Identify and demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the issues, problems, and concepts.

4 points
Excellent

Identifies and demonstrates an accomplished understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts.

2 points
Fair

Identifies and demonstrates an acceptable understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts.

1 point
Poor

Identifies and demonstrates an unacceptable understanding of most issues, problems, and concepts.

5 points

Use of Citations, Writing Mechanics and APA Formatting Guidelines

3 points
Distinguished

Effectively uses the literature and other resources to inform their work. Exceptional use of citations and extended referencing. High level of APA precision and free of grammar and spelling errors.

2 points
Excellent

Effectively uses the literature and other resources to inform their work. Moderate use of citations and extended referencing. Moderate level of APA precision and free of grammar and spelling errors.

1 point
Fair

Ineffectively uses the literature and other resources to inform their work. Moderate use of citations and extended referencing. APA style and writing mechanics need more precision and attention to detail.

0 point
Poor

Ineffectively uses the literature and other resources to inform their work. Unacceptable use of citations and extended referencing. APA style and writing mechanics need serious attention.

3 points
Response to Posts of Peers

2 points
Distinguished

The student constructively responded to two other posts and either extended, expanded or provided a rebuttal to each.

1 point
Fair

The student constructively responded to one other post and either extended, expanded or provided a rebuttal.

0 point
Poor

The student provided no response to a peer’s post.

2 points

[supanova_question]

RSCH 8110 Walden Wk 8 Qualitative Research Validity and Reliability Discussion Science Assignment Help

Typically, when speaking of validity, qualitative researchers are referring to research that is credible and trustworthy, i.e., the extent to which one can have confidence in the study’s findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Generalizability, a marker of reliability, is typically not a main purpose of qualitative research because the researcher rarely selects a random sample with a goal to generalize to a population or to other settings and groups. Rather, a qualitative researcher’s goal is often to understand a unique event or a purposively selected group of individuals. Therefore, when speaking of reliability, qualitative researchers are typically referring to research that is consistent or dependable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), i.e., the extent to which the findings of the study are consistent with the data that was collected.

References

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

For this Discussion, you will explain criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and consider the connection of such criteria to philosophical orientations. You will also consider the ethical implications of designing qualitative research.

With these thoughts in mind:

By Day 4

Post an explanation of two criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research designs. Next, explain how these criteria are tied to epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying philosophical orientations and the standards of your discipline. Then, identify a potential ethical issue in qualitative research and explain how it might influence design decisions. Finally, explain what it means for a research topic to be amenable to scientific study using a qualitative approach.

Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.

In your discussion, do not forget to address philosophy, ethics, trustworthiness and amenability.

In your assignment, please remember that review articles are not acceptable. Also, the summary should include the basics about methods and findings. The second paragraph should mention limitations of the study. The application paragraph should say how the article helps you plan your own study on the topic.


additional info

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss4/6/

https://www.emailmeform.com/builder/form/Kel0pm0Cf…

[supanova_question]

BUS 402 Strayer University Week 3 Public Communication in Business Paper Business Finance Assignment Help

Part one

  • Two friends are considering launching a small company, which they believe has potential to grow into a large firm in the future. Identify three (3) important factors they should take into consideration when selecting a form of ownership. Next, recommend one (1) form of ownership you believe will best serve the organization now and in the future. Justify your response.

Part two

There are several different formats (emails, letters, reports, slides, and

more) we will study this quarter. How important is the format in connecting with an audience? Defend your answer with relevant support.

Part three

In order to receive credit for completing this task, you must:

1.Choose a question from the list. (View attachment)

2.Make sure your answer to the question is no less than 20 words and no more than 50 words exactly—use the Word Count tool in Microsoft Word to check.

3.Remember, citations and references do not count towards the word count.

4.Provide a viable, complete answer. You must provide a hyperlink to the resource if applicable and clearly give credit in another way (e.g., provide an in-text citation for the textbook [no reference needed] and an in-text citation and a reference for an outside source used).

[supanova_question]

BIO 220 Grand Canyon University Human Population Growth Paper Science Assignment Help

There are different perspectives on human population growth
and the dynamics associated with population change. Go to CIA World Factbook website
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html)
and choose one developed (not the United States) and one developing country and
compare the following and answer the questions:

Attached is the worksheet that needs to be completed and also a resource paper that you might need to answer the questions..

Some resources that might help with this assignment:

Read “The Human Impact on the Ecosystem: Past, Present and Future,” by Chiarelli, from Journal of Biological Research (2012).

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102222718&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Read “Population Growth and the Environment” and “Toxins in the Environment” in Environmental Science: The Human Impact on Natural Resources.

http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2015/environmental-science_the-human-impact-on-natural-resources_ebook_1e.php

Read “Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017).

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport

[supanova_question]

[supanova_question]

MGMT 1999 Bellevue University Managing Critical Employees Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help

Please, ensure work is plagiarism free and copy of Turnit-in provided: This is now required by the School

Purpose:

The purpose of this project is to examine your understanding of the challenges of managing critical employees who work in demanding jobs. Using a case study, you will be asked to demonstrate how motivation, relationship building, and trust affect organizational effectiveness.

Assignment:

Using the case study below, course material and research. Write a 5-6 page paper not including the title and reference list pages. The paper should examine the follow points:

  • Identify the relationship building issues that exist in the case study. Explain the reasoning behind their selection.
  • Research the questions of motivation, trust and ethical behavior in creating sound management relationships and thus add to the success of an organization.
  • Apply the research to the case study and create a plan for Jackson on how to best handle the situation. Be sure to examine all the stakeholders in the plan, his team the organization, himself and McConnell and the vendors.
  • Explain the reasoning/conclusions behind your plan elements and support them with your research, class materials, and case study facts.
  • Finally, discuss how the plan will maximize organizational effectiveness.
  • Use at least five scholarly sources.
  • Use the course material, research, and case study facts to support all your conclusions.
  • Create a title page with your name, the instructors name, assignment name and date.
  • Create a separate reference list and be sure to use APA format including in-text citations.
  • SUBMIT THE FINAL WORK IN THE ASSIGNMENT FOLDER.

Case Study

Charles Jackson is chief information officer (CIO) at McConnell Spice, a large Maryland Spice company. In an industry that has a large national market presence yet is global in its need for raw materials, McConnell Spice is always looking for ways to increase productivity and speed things up while staying connected to its worldwide sources. Two years into the job, Jackson suggested to company president Ann McConnell that McConnell implement a new global knowledge-sharing application that promises to cut development time and costs in half. Jackson has done extensive research on knowledge-sharing systems, and has talked closely with a fellow IT director at the global powerhouse ADM. The ADM director believes the knowledge-sharing systems play an important role in a company’s competitiveness and concurs that Jackson should pursue purchasing one.

McConnell presented the idea to the board of directors, and everyone agreed to pursue the project. She has asked Jackson to investigate firms that could assist McConnell’s IT department in developing and implementing a global knowledge-sharing application that would be compatible with McConnell’s existing systems. McConnell explained that she wants to present the information to the board of directors for a decision next month.

Jackson and his team, after many long nights, identified three major firms that he believed could handle the work and made an appointment with McConnell to go over the findings. At the appointed time Jackson crossed the lentil of the McConnell’s office door, where he was immediately greeted by Geraldine Fox, a young, petite, attractive woman who served as a sort of executive assistant to McConnell. Fox took the information from Jackson and promised the president would review it within two days. Disappointed with being unable to submit the findings in person Jackson returned to his team who was anxiously awaiting Mc Connell’s response. Frustrated with the lack of feedback Jackson sent the team home early to put salve on the wound.

The next afternoon, McConnell called Jackson to her office and asked why Standard Systems, a small local consulting firm, was not being considered as a potential provider. Jackson was surprised—Standard was known primarily for helping small companies computerize their accounting systems. Jackson was not aware that they had done any work related to knowledge-sharing applications, particularly on a global basis. Upon further investigation into the company, Jackson learned that Standard was owned by an uncle of McConnell’s son-in-law. Fortunately, he also learned that the firm had some limited experience in more complex applications. At their most recent meeting, McConnell insisted that Standard be included for possible consideration by the board.

During the next two weeks, representatives from each company met with Jackson, his two top executives, and the IT staff to explain their services and give demonstrations. Jackson had suggested that the board of directors attend these presentations, but McConnell said they wouldn’t have the time and he, Jackson, would need to evaluate everything and make a recommendation to the board. At the end of these meetings, Jackson prepared a final report evaluating the pros and cons of going with each firm and making his first- and second-choice recommendations. Standard was dead last on his list. Although the firm had some excellent people and a good reputation, it was simply not capable of handling such a large and complex project.

McConnell informed Jackson that the Board would meet in one week and he was to present his findings and decision to the Board for approval. McConnell said, “I know you agree with me and are for Standard but we have to pretend that these other companies are in contention.” McConnell winks and walks away leaving Jackson devastated and appalled at the idea that the least effective company could get the job.

Additional Requirements and How to Prepare the Submission

  • Follow the instructions carefully if the assignment asks for a memo, email, plan, report, etc. be sure to follow the format templates provided. Submissions should be in proper business writing forms.
  • If appropriate for the assignment APA formatting is required (in-text and reference list only).
  • Read the grading rubric for the assignment
  • Check the instructions to make sure all elements of the assignment have been covered.
  • Third-person writing is required. Third-person means that there are no words such as “I, me, my, we, or us” (first-person writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second-person writing). If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this link: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-second-and-third-person .
  • Contractions are not used in business writing, so the expectation is that students do not use contractions in assignments.
  • Paraphrase and do not use direct quotation marks. This means you do not use more than four consecutive words from a source document, put a passage from a source document into your own words and attribute the passage to the source document. Provide the page or paragraph number. Note that a reference within a reference list cannot exist without an associated in-text citation and vice versa.
  • Students are expected to use a variety as well as multiple course readings and research to support ideas, reasoning, and conclusions.
  • Submit the final project into the appropriate assignment submission folder. Once submitted, the project is eligible for grading and students will not be permitted to make changes or make another submission.

NOTE: All submitted work is to be your original work. You may not use any work from another student, the Internet or an online clearinghouse. You are expected to understand the Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Policy and know that it is your responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources as specified in the APA Publication Manual, 7th Ed. (Students are held accountable for in-text citations and an associated reference list only).

Hide Rubrics

Rubric Name: Case Study- 10%

This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.CriteriaExcellent

Good

Developing

Needs Improvement

Failing

Criterion Score

Analysis of the case study

2 points

Analysis of case study; issues were concluded by using ideas that were supported from a thorough use of research, class material and case study facts; reflects an insightful and complex understanding of behaviors that can affect effective management

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Identification of case study issues were concluded by using ideas that were supported from of class material, case study facts and research; reflects an good understanding of behaviors that can affect effective management, but was missing one issue discussion or one or two were not developed.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Identification of case study issues were mostly concluded by using ideas that were supported from of class material, case study facts and research; reflects a satisfactory understanding of behaviors that can affect effective management, but was missing two issues from the discussion or three were not developed leaving the impression of a general discussion.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to identify some of the issues but elements were missing; those presented were either unclear or implied; conclusions derived from logical reasoning supported by the facts, class material and research was minimal or not present.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

No Identification and/or explanation was not made or minimal depth leaving the impression of an incorrect or unsupported understanding of the concepts.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Research/Discussion of motivation, Trust, Ethical Behavior

2 points

Includes extensive analysis addressing how trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships.

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Includes a thorough analysis addressing how trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Includes an analysis addressing how trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to address trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships with many elements missing. (1.2-1.39)

0 points

Does not address motivation, trust or ethical behavior.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Strategies for Improvement

2 points

Strategies for improvement are concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were thoroughly supported by course and research material and showed insightful and complex understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to success

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Recommendations for improvement are concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material but 1 to 2 minor areas in the discussion were underdeveloped because of missing examples.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Most recommendations for improvement are concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material and showed a sufficient understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to successful handling; the supporting discussion was underdeveloped because of missing examples or case study fact application.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to make plan but elements were missing; those presented were either unclear or implied; conclusions derived from logical reasoning supported by the facts, class material and research was minimal or not present.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

Little to know plan recommendations were made and/or the explanation was lacking supportive reasoning.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Identify and explain components that enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness

2 points

Identify and explain components that support organizational effectiveness and efficiency was concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were thoroughly supported by course and research material and showed insightful and complex understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to success

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Explanation as to how the Plan supported organizational effectiveness and efficiency concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material but 1 to 2 minor areas in the discussion were underdeveloped because of missing examples.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Most of the explanation was concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material and showed a sufficient understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to successful handling; the supporting discussion was underdeveloped because of missing examples or case study fact application.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to explain the plan’s effectiveness or efficiency major but elements were missing; those presented were either unclear or implied; conclusions derived from logical reasoning supported by the facts, class material and research was minimal or not present.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

No justification was given or the at given was opinion and unsupported by material or case study facts.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Outside Research Selection: materials used show academic validity and are appropriate for the topic intended

1 point

More than 5 sources were used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and they were of academic quality and demonstrated appropriate application to the topic under discussion.

(.90-1.0)

0.85 points

5 outside sources were used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and they were of academic quality and demonstrated appropriate application to the topic under discussion

(.80-.899)

0.75 points

3-4 outside sources were used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and they mostly were of academic quality and demonstrated appropriate application to the topic under discussion. .

(.70-.799)

0.65 points

1 scholarly source was used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and/or the academic quality was not valid or failed to be appropriate to the topic under discussion.

(.60-.699)

0 points

No outside reference material was used.

(0- .599)

/ 1

Writing Mechanics

0.5 points

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English using paragraphs and sentence rather than bullets, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No contractions or jargon used. 0 to 2 errors noted.

(.45-.50)

0.425 points

Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. 3 to 6 errors noted.

(.40-.449)

0.375 points

Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. 7 to 10 errors noted.

(.35-.399)

0.325 points

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.

(.30-.349)

0 points

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count.

(0-.299)

/ 0.5

APA Style (7th ed.)

0.5 points

One to 2 APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

(.45-.50)

0.425 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference list but 3 – 4 APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.

(.40-.449)

0.375 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document with 5-6 errors noted; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 – 4 times in document.

(.35-.399)

0.325 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 5-6 times; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 5-6 times in document or presents a total of 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper when requires APA citations are needed throughout the document.

(.30-.349)

0 points

No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0-.299)

/ 0.5

Rubric Total ScoreTotal/ 10

Overall Score

Overall Score

Excellent9 points minimum

Good8 points minimum

Developing7 points minimum

Needs Improvement6 points minimum

Failing0 points minimum

Submit Assignment

MGMT 1999 Bellevue University Managing Critical Employees Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help[supanova_question]

CMCE 1221 CUNY Kingsborough Community College Construction Management Exam Engineering Assignment Help

Question 1:

For a $10 million office building project, the design documents are 60% complete. The owner has

decided to bring a construction management firm onboard to assist in the preconstruction and

construction phases of the project.

The owner advertised the Request for Proposals (RFPs), received written proposals from two (2)

potential firms, Firm A and Firm B. Both the firms are equally qualified in terms of experience,

references, financial capability etc. and have worked with the owner successfully on previous

projects.

Firm A is proposing a cost-plus-fee contract with 10% fee on top of its estimated cost of $250 per

hour. On the other hand, Firm B is proposing a CM-at-risk style contract with a guaranteed

maximum price (GMP) of $7 million.

The remaining design of the project is expected to complete in the next 6 months and the

construction duration of the project is expected to be 24 months. The completion of the project

on schedule is very important to the Owner and needs to be strictly obeyed by all the parties.

For your information, construction typically costs about 80% of the total project cost.

1. Based on the above scenario, which firm should the owner award the contract for the CM

services? Explain your answer from owner’s perspective of managing risk and weighing in

advantages/disadvantages of each approach. (Word Limit: 300 words)

2. If base rate for a Resident Engineer is $100 per hour for Firm A and $150 per hour for Firm B.

What will be their billed labor rates for Resident Engineer based on cost plus fee contract

with 10% fee?

3. If the owner proceeds with Firm B (CM-at-risk) what are the possible advantages and

disadvantages of this approach from owner’s perspective? (Word Limit: 250 words)

Question 2:

The design phase of a construction project is expected to take 24 months and the construction

timeframe is also expected to take 24 months. Owner decided to use design-build (DB) project

delivery method and divided the design phase into three (3) equal sub-phases. Similarly, the

construction phase was divided into three (3) equal sub-phases and each sub-phase began

after completion of the corresponding design sub-phase.

1. What is the total duration of this project? Show your work in the form of bar diagram.

2. What would be total project duration if the owner used typical design-bid-build delivery

method?

[supanova_question]

FIU Advance Pharmacology Chronic Stable Angina Diagnosis Case Study Health Medical Assignment Help

Chronic Stable Angina

E.H. is a 45-year-old African American man who recently moved to the community from another state. He requests renewal of a prescription for a calcium channel blocker, prescribed by a physician in the former state. He is unemployed and lives with a woman, their son, and the woman’s 2 children. His past medical history is remarkable for asthma and six “heart attacks” that he claims occurred because of a 25-year history of drug use (primarily cocaine). He states that he used drugs as recently as 2 weeks ago. He does not have any prior medical records with him. He claims that he has been having occasional periods of chest pain. He is unable to report the duration or pattern of the pain. Before proceeding, explore the following questions: What further information would you need to diagnose angina (substantiate your answer)? What is the connection between cocaine use and angina? Identify at least three tests that you would order to diagnose angina.

Diagnosis: Angina

1. List specific goals of treatment for E.H.

2. What dietary and lifestyle changes should be recommended for this patient?

3. What drug therapy would you prescribe for E.H. and why?

4. How would you monitor for success in E.H.?

5. Describe one or two drug–drug or drug–food interactions for the selected agent.

6. List one or two adverse reactions for the selected agent that would cause you to change therapy.

7. What would be the choice for the second-line therapy?

8. Discuss specific patient education based on the prescribed first-line therapy.

9. What over-the-counter and/or alternative medications would be appropriate for E.H.?

***Use APA 6th Edition Format and support your work with at least 3 peer-reviewed references within 5 years of publication. Remember that you need a cover page and a reference page. All paragraphs need to be cited properly. Please use headers. All responses must be in a narrative format and each paragraph must have at least 4 sentences. Lastly, you must have at least 2 pages of content, no greater than 4 pages, excluding cover page and reference page.

[supanova_question]

Florida International University The ACC and AHA Guidelines Discussion Health Medical Assignment Help

Chief complaint: “I’m here for a medication refill because I ran out of my medicines”.

HPI: Mrs. Allen is a 68-year-old African American who presents to the clinic for prescription refills. The patient indicates that she has noticed shortness of breath which started about 3 months ago. The SOB gets worse with exertion, especially when she is walking fast, and it is resolved when she is resting. She reports that she is also bothered by shortness of breath that wakes her up intermittently during her sleep. Her symptoms of shortness of breath resolve after sitting upright on 3 pillows. She also has lower leg edema pitting 1+ which started 2 weeks ago. She indicates that she often feels light headed at times with intermittent syncope episodes while going up a flight of stairs, but it resolves after sitting down to rest. She has not tried any over the counter medications at home.

She started taking her medications, but failed to refill the prescriptions because she cannot afford the medications as she only works part-time and lives alone. In addition, she reports that she does not think taking all these medications would help her condition anyway.

PMH: Primary Hypertension, Previous history of MI 1 year ago

Surgeries:

1 year ago-Left Anterior Descending (LAD) cardiac stent placement

Allergies: Penicillin

Vaccination History: Up-to-date

Social history:

High school graduate married and no children. Drinks one 4-ounce glass of red wine daily. She is a former smoker and stopped 5 years ago.

Family history:

Both parents are alive. Father has history of MI and valvular heart disease; mother alive and cardiac history is unknown. He has one brother who is alive and has history of MI 5 years ago at age 52.

ROS:

Constitutional: Lightheaded and faint with exertion. Respiratory: Shortness of breath with exertion. + Orthopnea. Cardiovascular: + 2 pitting leg edema for 3 weeks.

Psychiatric: Non-contributory.

Physical examination:

Vital Signs: Height: 5 feet 1 inches Weight: 175 pounds BMI: 32, Obese, BP 160/92, T 98.0, P 111, R 22 and non-labored

HEENT: Normocephalic/Atraumatic, Bilateral cataracts; PERRLA, EOMI; Teeth intact. Negative for gum disease. NECK: Neck supple, no palpable masses, no lymphadenopathy, no thyroid enlargement. LUNGS: + Mild Crackles on inspiratory phase not clearing with cough. Equal breath sounds. Symmetrical respiration. No respiratory distress. HEART: Normal S1 with S2 during expiration. An S4 is noted at the apex; + systolic murmur noted at the right upper sternal border without radiation to the carotids. Pulses are 2+ in upper extremities and 2+ in pedal pulses bilaterally. 2+ pitting edema to her knees noted bilaterally. ABDOMEN: No abdominal distention. Nontender. Bowel sounds + x 4 quadrants. No organomegaly. Normal contour; No palpable masses. GENITOURINARY: No CVA tenderness bilaterally. GU exam deferred. MUSCULOSKELETAL: + Heberden’s nodes at the DIP joints, hands. + Crepitus, bilateral knees. Slow gait but steady. No Kyphosis. PSYCH: Normal affect. Cooperative. SKIN: No rashes. Positive for dry skin.

Labs: Hgb 13.2, Hct 38%, K+ 4.0, Na+137, Cholesterol 228, Triglycerides 187, HDL 37, LDL 190, TSH 3.7, glucose 98.

A:

Primary Diagnosis: Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)

Secondary Diagnoses: Primary Hypertension, Obesity, Osteoarthritis (OA)

Differential Diagnosis: Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD)

Plan:

Medications: Tylenol 650 mg PO Q4 hours as needed for arthritis pain

Labs: UA; Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP); LFTs and TSH; 12-lead EKG, Chest X-ray; Initial 2D echo with Doppler; Ankle-brachial index.

Additional lab results: Echo results 1 week ago: Left ventricular EJ Fraction decreased to 35 %

BNP – not available.

As a future FNP, you need to determine the medications for CHF/ASCVD. (Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease).

Questions:

1. According to the ACC/AHA guidelines, what medications should this patient be prescribed?

2. Does he need medication(s) given his history of MI?

3. Considering that you have a case study, you only need 2 posts for this discussion board, 1 initial and 1 reply. As usual, all posts must be supported by at least 2 peer reviewed references and all paragraphs must be cited.

***A minimum of 6 paragraphs is required for all posts. Support all posts with at least 2 cited peer review references within 5 years of publication (references cannot be older than 5 years).All posts are to be written in APA 6th edition format as required by the university.

[supanova_question]

Hood College Dev C++ Basic List Container Program Codding Exercise Computer Science Assignment Help

I’m working on a Computer Science question and need support to help me study.

* note that the way the default constructored is coded, such that

 * 1) the head is a sentinel node with two pointers and the head does not store data value
* 2) the list goes two directions: next and previous
* Fully test each member function before you work to implement the next one
*/

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

struct node {
int data;
node *prev;
node *next;
};

class lista {
public:
lista() {head = new node; head->next = head; head->prev = head;}

// insert a new element at the beginning of the list, right before its current first element. The content of val is copied to the inserted element
void push_front(const int &val)
{
node * np;
np = new node;
np->data = val;

np -> next = head -> next;
head -> next -> prev = np;
np -> prev = head;
head -> next = np;

}

void push_back(const int &val);

// remove the first element in the list container, effectively reducing the size by one
void pop_front() {
node *np = head->next;

head->next = head->next->next;
head->next->prev = head;

delete np;
}

void pop_back();

// return a reference to the first element in the list container
const int& front() const { return head->next->data;}
const int& back() const;

// We use this friend function to show the contents of the list
friend void display_list(const lista &obj);

// return the number of elements in the list container
int size() const;

// returns whether the list container is empty
bool empty() const;

// remove all elements from the list container (which are destroyed), leaving the container with a size of 0
void clear();

private:
node * head;
};

void display_list(const lista &obj)
{
node* np;

np = obj.head->next;

cout << "begin of the list.. " << endl;
while (np != obj.head) {
cout << np->data << endl;
np = np->next;
}
cout << "end of the list.. n" << endl;

}

int main()
{
lista mylist;

display_list(mylist);
mylist.push_front(5);
display_list(mylist);
mylist.pop_front();
display_list(mylist);
mylist.push_front(5);
display_list(mylist);
cout << "the content of the first element in the list is: " << mylist.front() << endl;
// cout << "the size of the list is: " << mylist.size() << endl;
// cout << "the list is empty is: " << mylist.empty() << endl;
// mylist.clear();
// display_list(mylist);

}

[supanova_question]

https://anyessayhelp.com/

Rubric Name: Case Study- 10%

This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.CriteriaExcellent

Good

Developing

Needs Improvement

Failing

Criterion Score

Analysis of the case study

2 points

Analysis of case study; issues were concluded by using ideas that were supported from a thorough use of research, class material and case study facts; reflects an insightful and complex understanding of behaviors that can affect effective management

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Identification of case study issues were concluded by using ideas that were supported from of class material, case study facts and research; reflects an good understanding of behaviors that can affect effective management, but was missing one issue discussion or one or two were not developed.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Identification of case study issues were mostly concluded by using ideas that were supported from of class material, case study facts and research; reflects a satisfactory understanding of behaviors that can affect effective management, but was missing two issues from the discussion or three were not developed leaving the impression of a general discussion.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to identify some of the issues but elements were missing; those presented were either unclear or implied; conclusions derived from logical reasoning supported by the facts, class material and research was minimal or not present.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

No Identification and/or explanation was not made or minimal depth leaving the impression of an incorrect or unsupported understanding of the concepts.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Research/Discussion of motivation, Trust, Ethical Behavior

2 points

Includes extensive analysis addressing how trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships.

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Includes a thorough analysis addressing how trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Includes an analysis addressing how trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to address trust and ethical behavior are used in creating sound management relationships with many elements missing. (1.2-1.39)

0 points

Does not address motivation, trust or ethical behavior.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Strategies for Improvement

2 points

Strategies for improvement are concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were thoroughly supported by course and research material and showed insightful and complex understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to success

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Recommendations for improvement are concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material but 1 to 2 minor areas in the discussion were underdeveloped because of missing examples.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Most recommendations for improvement are concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material and showed a sufficient understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to successful handling; the supporting discussion was underdeveloped because of missing examples or case study fact application.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to make plan but elements were missing; those presented were either unclear or implied; conclusions derived from logical reasoning supported by the facts, class material and research was minimal or not present.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

Little to know plan recommendations were made and/or the explanation was lacking supportive reasoning.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Identify and explain components that enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness

2 points

Identify and explain components that support organizational effectiveness and efficiency was concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were thoroughly supported by course and research material and showed insightful and complex understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to success

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Explanation as to how the Plan supported organizational effectiveness and efficiency concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material but 1 to 2 minor areas in the discussion were underdeveloped because of missing examples.

(1.6-1.799)

1.5 points

Most of the explanation was concluded using logical reasoning (justification) that were supported by course and research material and showed a sufficient understanding as to how the improvement recommendations will lead to successful handling; the supporting discussion was underdeveloped because of missing examples or case study fact application.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 points

Attempt was made to explain the plan’s effectiveness or efficiency major but elements were missing; those presented were either unclear or implied; conclusions derived from logical reasoning supported by the facts, class material and research was minimal or not present.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

No justification was given or the at given was opinion and unsupported by material or case study facts.

(0- 1.19)

/ 2

Outside Research Selection: materials used show academic validity and are appropriate for the topic intended

1 point

More than 5 sources were used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and they were of academic quality and demonstrated appropriate application to the topic under discussion.

(.90-1.0)

0.85 points

5 outside sources were used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and they were of academic quality and demonstrated appropriate application to the topic under discussion

(.80-.899)

0.75 points

3-4 outside sources were used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and they mostly were of academic quality and demonstrated appropriate application to the topic under discussion. .

(.70-.799)

0.65 points

1 scholarly source was used to support the ideas and conclusions drawn throughout the paper and/or the academic quality was not valid or failed to be appropriate to the topic under discussion.

(.60-.699)

0 points

No outside reference material was used.

(0- .599)

/ 1

Writing Mechanics

0.5 points

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English using paragraphs and sentence rather than bullets, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No contractions or jargon used. 0 to 2 errors noted.

(.45-.50)

0.425 points

Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. 3 to 6 errors noted.

(.40-.449)

0.375 points

Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. 7 to 10 errors noted.

(.35-.399)

0.325 points

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.

(.30-.349)

0 points

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count.

(0-.299)

/ 0.5

APA Style (7th ed.)

0.5 points

One to 2 APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

(.45-.50)

0.425 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference list but 3 – 4 APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.

(.40-.449)

0.375 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document with 5-6 errors noted; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 – 4 times in document.

(.35-.399)

0.325 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 5-6 times; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 5-6 times in document or presents a total of 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper when requires APA citations are needed throughout the document.

(.30-.349)

0 points

No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0-.299)

/ 0.5

Rubric Total ScoreTotal/ 10

Overall Score

Overall Score

Excellent9 points minimum

Good8 points minimum

Developing7 points minimum

Needs Improvement6 points minimum

Failing0 points minimum

Submit Assignment

MGMT 1999 Bellevue University Managing Critical Employees Discussion Business Finance Assignment Help[supanova_question]